|
On July 23 2011 08:03 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 07:56 Airship wrote:
Yeah you're right nobody should ever advance their careers, they owe too much to the people who first supported them (even though they weren't on a contract, making money, or able to keep hold of other staff members). And as for the new employers, how DARE they negotiate directly with the individual. The matter of his employment should have been taken up with his current team, his parents, his teachers, his pets and all other people who don't actually currently employ him. Imagine the sheer gall of the aptly named EVIL geniuses who saw the worlds greatest terran in front of them, a complete free agent, and offered them an actual career. What a fucking force of complete deviance. Can you please share how old are you? Have you been ever employed in your life? Did you hear from anyone trustworthy, that he was drafted from another company by talking to the employers (Not the employee)? This was abolished in US shortly after a civil war. So if you can provide enough evidence, please contact your local law enforcement agency.
Edit: nvm. misunderstood your post.
Though, i think you didn't get his sarcasm either.
|
On July 23 2011 06:58 Grimsong wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 06:49 Toadvine wrote:On July 23 2011 06:21 Grimsong wrote:On July 23 2011 06:08 LegendaryZ wrote:On July 23 2011 05:58 nuMi22 wrote:
I explained why there needs to be contracts in my initial post a few pages back. You can't expect Esports to take off without them, it's just not possible. I agree that there eventually needs to be contracts, but they have to happen when the scene can support them. Otherwise you just end up with a bunch of one-sided contracts that put control over the players while guaranteeing them nothing in return besides what they would have already gotten without contracts. It's going to end up being KeSPA all over again at this rate. On July 23 2011 05:57 Grimsong wrote:
All the more reason for players to not sign a single damn thing in Korea because the mindset out there is broken. If they were able to slide from under that pressure and realize they drive that market, not the teams, then they could flip it back on the Korean teams that are trying to give people potato sacks as payment for their professional gaming services. The players NEED to protect themselves until there is some type of mediation between the players, and the teams. Not signing a contract = No food, no place to live, no practice environment. Where does that leave the players? Conversely, for the teams, for every player not willing to sign a contract there are probably a hundred that are. This is all not even considering the fact that SC2 Korean teams are very different from BW teams from an administrative standpoint. Korean SC2 teams ARE pretty much run by the players themselves. They haven't yet reached the type of divide between labor and management where such a dispute would make sense to occur. Korean SC2 teams ARE pretty much in the rural stages because Korea doesnt have the economic support that BW did. So they're trying to hold onto these players despite not having that "model" BW environment. Not going to fly. If the players sign contracts now, I certainly hope they are VERY short term. As in MAXIMUM one year. Because once it gets out how worthless these contracts are that BIND the Korean players to play in the very secluded Korean market, the global market will be clamoring to get some of those guys in much more lucrative, expansive, and viable contract situations. I understand that Korea is now going to probably start mandating their players to sign contracts. That's fine. That's their perogative, and it's really unfortunate for the players there to have to be subjected to that setting no matter what. Until Korea hops on board with globalizing their guys, this will always be a problem, and it will always be "ours vs theirs" for Korea. Instead of helping the reset of the world grow, they want the rest of the world to implode into them if they want to play with the Korean talent. Hopefully things can happen elsewhere that can help dodge a Kespa 2.0 situation that more or less seals Koreas fate. Do you honestly think a "global market" would be a good thing in this particular situation? It is universally agreed that the Korean training regime and team structure produces players superior to their Western counterparts. Do you think a good way of globalizing SC2 would be for Western organizations to sign the most successful Korean players? I can see one of two things happening within the Korean scene in response to this development. Either SK will go the "Brazil" way, force relatively long-term contracts on players, handle transfers between Korean teams through some form of arbitrage, and force the Western teams to pay a huge amount of money for any successful player they want. This is essentially the "Kespa2" option. Or, an agreement like this will not be reached for whatever reason, and the scene will collapse after being drained of top talent. Now, the former of these options might not seem completely terrible. However, consider that whatever money teams are spending on buying out Korean players will be money they aren't spending on developing their own infrastructure and local talent. It would really be a bad relationship between the scenes. It sort of works in football, except Brazil is nowhere near as far ahead of other countries as SK is in SC2 currently; also, Brazil's dominance stems from the genuine popularity of football over there, as opposed to SK's ability to produce good SC2 players, which is completely based on infrastructure and know-how. For Korea? It's not whats best at all. I can understand why Korea has the red alert alarms going and probably have begun taking measure to protect their prized players so that they never leave Korea. But do you think that's whats fair and right to the players? To be secluded solely to a market that will likely never thrive to the extent that BW did there, considering how much momentum has already been attained from the rest of the world? I think a good way to globalize this is not for the West to sign all of the Korean players, but for Korea to be a bigger player outside of Korea. But they arent. Why? A) Because they never did so in BW so why start now? B) Because they dont have the economical resources to do a great deal outside of Korea, because SC2 isnt driving any market there. It's a floating scene that needs to change for it to reach its peak. Whats best for the global scene? What's best for fans who want to see the best of the best fight? You think Korea hiding away is whats best for the world?
I honestly don't know what's best for all the parties involved, abstract notions like "the growth of e-sports" included. I do think that the growth of the SC2 scene in SK is, in many ways, more dependent on how Blizzard continues to conduct their business there, than the quality of the game, the players, the teams, and so forth. In a sense, as hard as GOM and the rest of the scene might try, it's largely out of their hands. Blizzard did a lot of damage to SC2's public image in SK through their legal war with Kespa, and it's mostly up to them to repair this image.
I do know one thing though, forcing the Korean teams to operate under rules which don't really fit their circumstances really doesn't help the relatively fragile Korean scene, at all. I'd much prefer if things proceeded more slowly, and that the foreign teams focus on developing their own player base, rather than trying to incorporate Korean players. There's also the matter of ethical conduct. Rain managed to leave TSL, join fnatic, and the move got nothing but positive feedback from the community. This is one thing I fault EG for, the bullheadedness of it all. I'm positive there was a way of going about acquiring Puma without opening this huge can of worms that we're all staring into right now. A bit of good will and good manners goes a long way.
You ask me what's good for the players. Most likely, a truly open market would be really good for the players who would manage to get good deals from foreign teams. For the rest, especially the hopefuls, it would probably be a catastrophe, as teams would be less inclined to invest in new talent. And for the foreigner players, it would mean stagnation.
|
So tell me, Sherlock. How exactly does EU differ? If an EU player is unsigned, he is a free agent. Period. If a player tells you to let him speak to his team first you will grant him that wish regardless of region.
Did u even hear WHY puma wasnt on a contract in the first place? Difference in EU is if ur on a proper team then you will have extras (hardware/ software/ money etc etc). Whereas in korea the main thing is the living (crazy practise, living costs) Then optional extras from there..we dont have the same "basic sponsorship" focus as korea... thats how it differs.....sherlock... lol
|
Deleted - Reaction to a non-existing comment.
|
On July 23 2011 08:11 GoStyle wrote:Show nested quote +
So tell me, Sherlock. How exactly does EU differ? If an EU player is unsigned, he is a free agent. Period. If a player tells you to let him speak to his team first you will grant him that wish regardless of region.
Did u even hear WHY puma wasnt on a contract in the first place? Difference in EU is if ur on a proper team then you will have extras (hardware/ software/ money etc etc). Whereas in korea the main thing is the living (crazy practise, living costs) Then optional extras from there..we dont have the same "basic sponsorship" focus as korea... thats how it differs.....sherlock... lol
sigh. you specifically stated there would be a difference between the US and EU. come, let me quote your post twice to help you understand your own words:
On July 23 2011 07:17 GoStyle wrote:
Just listened to Weapon of choice.... EG are sly dogs to do what they did and they try patronising the korean guy as to how "international esports works" is pathetic.. maybe thats how US esports is run but not in EU.
so, where is the difference between US and EU?
|
Puma obviously made a decision that he thought would better himself. He probably wasn't getting paid much if at all in TSL, of course they did provide him housing/food but really any well known team can do that for you if you are good enough. He's an up and coming player in SC2 and he is putting himself out there and I think he made a good decision.
|
I was listening WOC, around 1:44:30 was an interesting moment where Alex Garfield (in a very polite way) converted Milkis into a journalist and then everything went crazy.
Basically it went from EG being BM by not contacting Momma Bear to "Korea's model has to change" to "Milkis is a irresponsible journalist".
Kinda sad.
|
On July 23 2011 06:02 DeckOneBell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 05:56 SafeAsCheese wrote:On July 23 2011 05:54 LegendaryZ wrote:On July 23 2011 05:48 nuMi22 wrote: Do you really believe relations between the Korean and international scene are going to improve because of this, or that Korean teams won't be even more wary of sending their players to international events (especially after the arguments that this is the "Western business model", and Korea better get used to it)?
The relations should never have been an issue because there is NO issue over how EG handled the situation with Puma. Yes the Koreans better get used to it, TSL is contracting their players now so they're already doing it. They wouldn't have done it if the foreign scene wasn't an influence. No, they wouldn't have put their players on contracts if the foreign scene wasn't an influence and honestly, at this point in the Korean SC2 scene, that would have been a good thing. Contracts in and of themselves don't guarantee players better lives. EG pretty much made things worse for players in the Korean scene by putting the teams on edge. Source for your basis on that thought? Signing contracts for long-term cooperation might make teams less likely to take chances on unknown players. If they're forced to keep the player a certain amount of time regardless of the player's results, such a situation may be considered too risky to take on. Yes, there were cases of poaching players previously in SC2, but it was rare enough that apparently, contracts weren't necessary to ensure player loyalty. Not to mention that the new state of affairs for TSL is a direct cause of the foreign SC2 scene. How do you think the Koreans feel about the situation when they hear a North American team is trying to poach their players? We want to integrate the foreign scene with the Korean scene, or at least I want to, and this is definitely not the right way to go about it.
TSL is angry because they have no way to ask for a buyout on a kid without a contract. This faux cultural outrage is just an easy out. TSL would've loved to have an opportunity to make money off of this player transaction, and this is the only reason they are pretending EG wasn't culturally sensitive.
Look, you need to reverse the tables. It is quite obvious that some of the Korean teams want to have their cake, and eat it, too. They don't want to contract most players, but they want to get money out of said players if they are successful. On top of that the team owners sit down and decide they don't want players fending for themselves on the market. Look, just because they make up some "code" about player transactions doesn't mean said code has any cultural basis.
If other Korean teams act like this, they are the ones who are opposing integration, and it is simply a business tactic. They're forced to do this because their business model is failing. The people counting beans can see that the SC2 scene outside of Korea is going to pay more to the players, and make more money for sponsors. They'll milk all the money they can out of their domestic league, and if the money disappears the businesspeople will just leave.
|
On July 23 2011 08:42 azka wrote:
I was listening WOC, around 1:44:30 was an interesting moment where Alex Garfield (in a very polite way) converted Milkis into a journalist and then everything went crazy.
Basically it went from EG being BM by not contacting Momma Bear to "Korea's model has to change" to "Milkis is a irresponsible journalist".
Kinda sad.
I dont know, whether you distort his words by mistake or on purpose. I watched it closely live and I am afraid the ladder is more probable. :'(
EDIT: Mainly his point about people from community often not realizing how great their influence can be (And with such responsibility you become "journalist", whether you are paid or you realized that.). And as he clearly stated, he did not accuse him of nothing. I think no sensible person would say, that phrasing and perspective has no effect on people.
|
I think this is a result of the current SC2 climate over in Korea. You basically have to win an extremely hard tournament (code a) to even qualify for an even harder tournament. It's really difficult and its the only tournament available.
I don't blame puma for wanting to take advantage of the numerous opportunities foreign sc2 can offer him nor do I blame EG for enticing him with said opportunities.
|
On July 23 2011 08:47 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 08:42 azka wrote:
I was listening WOC, around 1:44:30 was an interesting moment where Alex Garfield (in a very polite way) converted Milkis into a journalist and then everything went crazy.
Basically it went from EG being BM by not contacting Momma Bear to "Korea's model has to change" to "Milkis is a irresponsible journalist".
Kinda sad. I dont know, whether you distort his words by mistake or on purpose. I watched it closely live and I am afraid the ladder is more probable. :'( EDIT: Mainly his point about people from community often not realizing how great their influence can be (And with such responsibility you become "journalist", whether you are paid or you realized that.). And as he clearly stated, he did not accuse him of nothing. I think no sensible person would say, that phrasing and perspective has no effect on people.
Ok, then I can tell I'm not accusing him of making Milkis responsible of all this bad feedback, right?
|
On July 23 2011 08:58 azka wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 08:47 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:On July 23 2011 08:42 azka wrote:
I was listening WOC, around 1:44:30 was an interesting moment where Alex Garfield (in a very polite way) converted Milkis into a journalist and then everything went crazy.
Basically it went from EG being BM by not contacting Momma Bear to "Korea's model has to change" to "Milkis is a irresponsible journalist".
Kinda sad. I dont know, whether you distort his words by mistake or on purpose. I watched it closely live and I am afraid the ladder is more probable. :'( EDIT: Mainly his point about people from community often not realizing how great their influence can be (And with such responsibility you become "journalist", whether you are paid or you realized that.). And as he clearly stated, he did not accuse him of nothing. I think no sensible person would say, that phrasing and perspective has no effect on people. Ok, then I can tell I'm not accusing him of making Milkis responsible of all this bad feedback, right?
I believe he broad up an old point (This was nothing new) on a situation that may be an example on the line between journalism and expressing your opinion to a community (which is not the same thing). I think thats all it is.
So shortly, no you can tell whatever you want, since you clearly fall into the ladder option.
|
On July 23 2011 09:21 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 08:58 azka wrote:On July 23 2011 08:47 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:On July 23 2011 08:42 azka wrote:
I was listening WOC, around 1:44:30 was an interesting moment where Alex Garfield (in a very polite way) converted Milkis into a journalist and then everything went crazy.
Basically it went from EG being BM by not contacting Momma Bear to "Korea's model has to change" to "Milkis is a irresponsible journalist".
Kinda sad. I dont know, whether you distort his words by mistake or on purpose. I watched it closely live and I am afraid the ladder is more probable. :'( EDIT: Mainly his point about people from community often not realizing how great their influence can be (And with such responsibility you become "journalist", whether you are paid or you realized that.). And as he clearly stated, he did not accuse him of nothing. I think no sensible person would say, that phrasing and perspective has no effect on people. Ok, then I can tell I'm not accusing him of making Milkis responsible of all this bad feedback, right? I believe he broad up an old point (This was nothing new) on a situation that may be an example on the line between journalism and expressing your opinion to a community (which is not the same thing). I think thats all it is. So shortly, no you can tell whatever you want, since you clearly fall into the ladder option.
I think he's intelligent enough to be polite while accusing (intimidating?) Milkis.
But that's just me telling things.
|
On July 23 2011 09:28 azka wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 09:21 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:On July 23 2011 08:58 azka wrote:On July 23 2011 08:47 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:On July 23 2011 08:42 azka wrote:
I was listening WOC, around 1:44:30 was an interesting moment where Alex Garfield (in a very polite way) converted Milkis into a journalist and then everything went crazy.
Basically it went from EG being BM by not contacting Momma Bear to "Korea's model has to change" to "Milkis is a irresponsible journalist".
Kinda sad. I dont know, whether you distort his words by mistake or on purpose. I watched it closely live and I am afraid the ladder is more probable. :'( EDIT: Mainly his point about people from community often not realizing how great their influence can be (And with such responsibility you become "journalist", whether you are paid or you realized that.). And as he clearly stated, he did not accuse him of nothing. I think no sensible person would say, that phrasing and perspective has no effect on people. Ok, then I can tell I'm not accusing him of making Milkis responsible of all this bad feedback, right? I believe he broad up an old point (This was nothing new) on a situation that may be an example on the line between journalism and expressing your opinion to a community (which is not the same thing). I think thats all it is. So shortly, no you can tell whatever you want, since you clearly fall into the ladder option. I think he's intelligent enough to be polite while accusing (intimidating?) Milkis. But that's just me telling things.
Ok, so if I understand you correctly. Being polite and careful while stating your/company opinion is bad, but being blunt and careless is ok?
Or is it a sign of Intelligence, therefore you are calling the original poster less intelligent?
I am a bit confused.
|
On July 23 2011 09:32 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 09:28 azka wrote:On July 23 2011 09:21 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:On July 23 2011 08:58 azka wrote:On July 23 2011 08:47 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:On July 23 2011 08:42 azka wrote:
I was listening WOC, around 1:44:30 was an interesting moment where Alex Garfield (in a very polite way) converted Milkis into a journalist and then everything went crazy.
Basically it went from EG being BM by not contacting Momma Bear to "Korea's model has to change" to "Milkis is a irresponsible journalist".
Kinda sad. I dont know, whether you distort his words by mistake or on purpose. I watched it closely live and I am afraid the ladder is more probable. :'( EDIT: Mainly his point about people from community often not realizing how great their influence can be (And with such responsibility you become "journalist", whether you are paid or you realized that.). And as he clearly stated, he did not accuse him of nothing. I think no sensible person would say, that phrasing and perspective has no effect on people. Ok, then I can tell I'm not accusing him of making Milkis responsible of all this bad feedback, right? I believe he broad up an old point (This was nothing new) on a situation that may be an example on the line between journalism and expressing your opinion to a community (which is not the same thing). I think thats all it is. So shortly, no you can tell whatever you want, since you clearly fall into the ladder option. I think he's intelligent enough to be polite while accusing (intimidating?) Milkis. But that's just me telling things. Ok, so if I understand you correctly. Being polite and careful while stating your/company opinion is bad, but being blunt and careless is ok? Or is it a sign of Intelligence, therefore you are calling the original poster less intelligent? I am a bit confused.
I don't see where I'm calling Milkis less intelligent. He was intelligent enough to understand what Alex was trying to do and stop him there.
But basically Alex said: "you are responsible but I'm not blaming you." Not a big deal since he didn't got any effect on Milkis future posts/tweets.
|
On July 23 2011 09:39 azka wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 09:32 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:On July 23 2011 09:28 azka wrote:On July 23 2011 09:21 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:On July 23 2011 08:58 azka wrote:On July 23 2011 08:47 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:On July 23 2011 08:42 azka wrote:
I was listening WOC, around 1:44:30 was an interesting moment where Alex Garfield (in a very polite way) converted Milkis into a journalist and then everything went crazy.
Basically it went from EG being BM by not contacting Momma Bear to "Korea's model has to change" to "Milkis is a irresponsible journalist".
Kinda sad. I dont know, whether you distort his words by mistake or on purpose. I watched it closely live and I am afraid the ladder is more probable. :'( EDIT: Mainly his point about people from community often not realizing how great their influence can be (And with such responsibility you become "journalist", whether you are paid or you realized that.). And as he clearly stated, he did not accuse him of nothing. I think no sensible person would say, that phrasing and perspective has no effect on people. Ok, then I can tell I'm not accusing him of making Milkis responsible of all this bad feedback, right? I believe he broad up an old point (This was nothing new) on a situation that may be an example on the line between journalism and expressing your opinion to a community (which is not the same thing). I think thats all it is. So shortly, no you can tell whatever you want, since you clearly fall into the ladder option. I think he's intelligent enough to be polite while accusing (intimidating?) Milkis. But that's just me telling things. Ok, so if I understand you correctly. Being polite and careful while stating your/company opinion is bad, but being blunt and careless is ok? Or is it a sign of Intelligence, therefore you are calling the original poster less intelligent? I am a bit confused. I don't see where I'm calling Milkis less intelligent. He was intelligent enough to understand what Alex was trying to do and stop him there. But basically Alex said: "you are responsible but I'm not blaming you." Not a big deal since he didn't got any effect on Milkis future posts/tweets.
I think he also wanted to point out that by being a simple OP, you could have major implications for the parties involved based on the amount of information you include at the time of your post.
|
Where is Pumas comments on this whole matter. We've seen EG's and TSL's sides of the story but what about the man himself?
If Puma was looking for a way off the team and EG offered it it seems like neither TSL or EG is at fault and that Puma himself is the one to blame for any of this. Not that a blame him...from what i hear he's been the practice partner at TSL forever and finally jumps into some tournaments and starts dominating.
If I was stuck as practice biatch for that long and another team finally came along and gave me a chance to shine I would take it in a second too.
Also with all the people leaving TSL they are clearly not doing a very good job with keeping their players happy. Maybe TSL is more at fault here than people are letting themselves believe.
|
On July 23 2011 09:41 NightAngel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 09:39 azka wrote:On July 23 2011 09:32 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:On July 23 2011 09:28 azka wrote:On July 23 2011 09:21 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:On July 23 2011 08:58 azka wrote:On July 23 2011 08:47 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:On July 23 2011 08:42 azka wrote:
I was listening WOC, around 1:44:30 was an interesting moment where Alex Garfield (in a very polite way) converted Milkis into a journalist and then everything went crazy.
Basically it went from EG being BM by not contacting Momma Bear to "Korea's model has to change" to "Milkis is a irresponsible journalist".
Kinda sad. I dont know, whether you distort his words by mistake or on purpose. I watched it closely live and I am afraid the ladder is more probable. :'( EDIT: Mainly his point about people from community often not realizing how great their influence can be (And with such responsibility you become "journalist", whether you are paid or you realized that.). And as he clearly stated, he did not accuse him of nothing. I think no sensible person would say, that phrasing and perspective has no effect on people. Ok, then I can tell I'm not accusing him of making Milkis responsible of all this bad feedback, right? I believe he broad up an old point (This was nothing new) on a situation that may be an example on the line between journalism and expressing your opinion to a community (which is not the same thing). I think thats all it is. So shortly, no you can tell whatever you want, since you clearly fall into the ladder option. I think he's intelligent enough to be polite while accusing (intimidating?) Milkis. But that's just me telling things. Ok, so if I understand you correctly. Being polite and careful while stating your/company opinion is bad, but being blunt and careless is ok? Or is it a sign of Intelligence, therefore you are calling the original poster less intelligent? I am a bit confused. I don't see where I'm calling Milkis less intelligent. He was intelligent enough to understand what Alex was trying to do and stop him there. But basically Alex said: "you are responsible but I'm not blaming you." Not a big deal since he didn't got any effect on Milkis future posts/tweets. I think he also wanted to point out that by being a simple OP, you could have major implications for the parties involved based on the amount of information you include at the time of your post.
Yes, but why he would point that, when he lacked to contact the OP via PM to make a "quote"? Look at Major's SEA incident post, where all parts tried to participate. You cannot blame Milkis for the lack of information from EG. That's EG's fault, not Milkis.
|
This is something Korean teams have to think about if they are going to send/allow their players to foreign events. I, personally, have no problem with Koreans playing in and winning foreign events, but the flip side of that is Korean teams have to understand things don't necessarily work the way they do in Korea, regarding team, players and contracts.
If Koreans want to come over and win foreign money, that is fine; but this is the risk the teams face for it, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I imagine Korean teams will be more vigilant about this in the future.
|
On July 23 2011 08:44 IslandLife wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 06:02 DeckOneBell wrote:On July 23 2011 05:56 SafeAsCheese wrote:On July 23 2011 05:54 LegendaryZ wrote:On July 23 2011 05:48 nuMi22 wrote: Do you really believe relations between the Korean and international scene are going to improve because of this, or that Korean teams won't be even more wary of sending their players to international events (especially after the arguments that this is the "Western business model", and Korea better get used to it)?
The relations should never have been an issue because there is NO issue over how EG handled the situation with Puma. Yes the Koreans better get used to it, TSL is contracting their players now so they're already doing it. They wouldn't have done it if the foreign scene wasn't an influence. No, they wouldn't have put their players on contracts if the foreign scene wasn't an influence and honestly, at this point in the Korean SC2 scene, that would have been a good thing. Contracts in and of themselves don't guarantee players better lives. EG pretty much made things worse for players in the Korean scene by putting the teams on edge. Source for your basis on that thought? Signing contracts for long-term cooperation might make teams less likely to take chances on unknown players. If they're forced to keep the player a certain amount of time regardless of the player's results, such a situation may be considered too risky to take on. Yes, there were cases of poaching players previously in SC2, but it was rare enough that apparently, contracts weren't necessary to ensure player loyalty. Not to mention that the new state of affairs for TSL is a direct cause of the foreign SC2 scene. How do you think the Koreans feel about the situation when they hear a North American team is trying to poach their players? We want to integrate the foreign scene with the Korean scene, or at least I want to, and this is definitely not the right way to go about it. TSL is angry because they have no way to ask for a buyout on a kid without a contract. This faux cultural outrage is just an easy out. TSL would've loved to have an opportunity to make money off of this player transaction, and this is the only reason they are pretending EG wasn't culturally sensitive. Look, you need to reverse the tables. It is quite obvious that some of the Korean teams want to have their cake, and eat it, too. They don't want to contract most players, but they want to get money out of said players if they are successful. On top of that the team owners sit down and decide they don't want players fending for themselves on the market. Look, just because they make up some "code" about player transactions doesn't mean said code has any cultural basis.
This doesn't make any sense because it is entirely possible to make a contract for nothing more than just room and board. They weren't avoiding a contract in order to take advantage of the kids or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
